Dissident Voice

October
2, 2003

Strong
critics of U.S. foreign policy often encounter charges of
"anti-Americanism." Even though vast numbers of people in the United
States disagree with Washington's assumptions and military actions, some
pundits can't resist grabbing onto a timeworn handle of pseudo-patriotic
demagoguery.

In
a typical outburst before the war on Iraq last spring, Rush Limbaugh told his
radio audience: "I want to say something about these anti-war
demonstrators. No, let's not mince words, let's call them what they are – anti-American
demonstrators."

Weeks
later, former Congressman Joe Scarborough, a Republican now rising through the
ranks of talking heads, said on MSNBC: "These leftist stooges for
anti-American causes are always given a free pass. Isn't it time to make them
stand up and be counted for their views, which could hurt American troop
morale?"

Today,
in an era when the sun never sets on deployed American troops, the hoary
epithet is not only a rhetorical weapon against domestic dissenters or foreign
foes. It's also useful for brandishing against allies. Oddly, in recent months,
across the narrow spectrum of U.S. mainstream punditry, even European unity has
been portrayed as "anti-American."

An
extensive article by Andrew Sullivan at the outset of the summer, in the mildly
liberal New Republic, warned that "with the unveiling of a new federalist
constitution for a 'United States of Europe' in June, the anti-American trend
will be subtly but profoundly institutionalized." Sullivan added:
"It's past time that Americans wake up and see this new threat for what it
is."

Similar
noises have come from right-wing outlets such as The Weekly Standard. Under the
stern headline "America needs a serious Europe policy," a
contributing editor declared that "the anti-American drift of the EU is
cause for concern. At a minimum, it should lead Washington to rethink its
traditional enthusiasm for greater European integration. Much as British entry
into the euro zone might make life easier for American businesses (and tourists),
it is sure to make life more difficult for American diplomats." And, the
article could have added, for American war planners.

The
elastic "anti-American" label stretches along a wide gamut. The
routine aim is to disparage and stigmatize activities or sentiments that
displease policymakers in Washington. Thus, "anti-American" has
spanned from al-Qaida terrorists, to angry Iraqis tiring of occupation, to
recalcitrant German and French leaders, to Labor Party backbenchers in
Britain's House of Commons.

Any
Americans gauged to be insufficiently supportive of U.S. government policies
may also qualify for similar aspersions. (During a debate on CNN International
this year, a fervent war supporter proclaimed me to be a "self-hating
American.")

The
officials now running Washington are intoxicated with priorities that involve
spending more than $1 billion a day on the U.S. military. Meanwhile, the media
support for de facto empire-building is tinged with sometimes-harsh criticism –
without urging forthright resistance to a succession of wars largely driven by
the USA. In many cases, the fear of being called "anti-American"
seems to match tacit enthusiasm for visions of pax Americana.

A
few weeks before he became the New York Times executive editor, Bill Keller
wrote in a June 14 essay about the Iraq intelligence debacle: "The truth
is that the information-gathering machine designed to guide our leaders in
matters of war and peace shows signs of being corrupted. To my mind, this is a
worrisome problem, but not because it invalidates the war we won. It is a
problem because it weakens us for the wars we still face."

"The
wars we still face" are chronically touted as imperatives. In the months
and years ahead, many commentators will keep equating opposition to military
actions with "anti-Americanism."

But
the fog of such rhetoric cannot hide destructive agendas. A lengthy mid-summer
report in the Los Angeles Times concluded that top Pentagon officials "are
studying the lessons of Iraq closely – to ensure that the next U.S. takeover of
a foreign country goes more smoothly."

A
special assistant to Donald Rumsfeld was upbeat. "We're going to get
better over time," said Lawrence Di Rita. "We've always thought of
post-hostilities as a phase" apart from combat, but "the future of
war is that these things are going to be much more of a continuum. ... We'll
get better as we do it more often."

While
political commanders plan to "do it more often," those of us who
oppose them can expect to hear that we're "anti-American."